Well, if the far right ever does** reach a point of unpopularity where they no longer get any votes, than it will be better for them to go down fighting and “clinging to their guns” than to turn against their conscience(s) and join the causes they don’t believe in. Better not to run at all than to run without their true values.
Based on this, it appears that “Obamacare supporter” seems to be the new “liberal”.
Again, what’s the point of the whole thing?
Hmnm, I don’t see any mention there of reconsidering if the principles they believe in *should *be believed in. Is there *no *number of people telling you you’re wrong sufficient to make you at least think it over?
The words liberal and conservative have taken on a new meaning in our time, as each has morphed into something different what what it meant even fifty or more years ago. I’d say that liberal has become left (or Left, if you must), though many liberals are classic leftists of the New Deal type (pro-union, for the Common Man, etc.), at least as many strike me as essentially “designer liberals”, as I call them, more interested in Green issues, things like animal rights, gender and race related issues, at such an abstract level, and in such sweeping terms as to feel almost not human. The Tip O’Neill era is over. When I think of liberalism today I think of the more affluent suburbs of the major cities of the coasts, elite professionals with highly specialized skills, not people oriented.
Conservatism has changed less, or so it seems to me. It seems to have dumbed down a lot since even the Reagan era, but that was a quarter of a century ago now. Reagan was championed by the likes of Willam F. Buckley and George Will. He had an elite base and a more traditional affluent following of business and professional people, mostly away from the coasts, though it’s good to remember he carried even such traditionally liberal states as New York and Massachusetts both times he ran for president. But to me that seems like a long time ago, longer than it actually was. I can’t see a New Reagan emerging from the ranks of the conservatives of today. Conservatives nowadays, while they can be found in any state of the union, seem to come to increasingly represent the (so-called) red states, and to people with similar beliefs, and as a result many people with moderate political beliefs often vote Left, as the Right has become too Right, too narrowly focused and unattractive as to style as much as content.
That’s pretty much exactly what “progressive” meant in the Progressive Era. But, elitist and racist as the whole thing was, it was also, on balance and for the most part, a very good thing for the country; just as what “progressive” means now (i.e., something well to the left of “liberal” and well to the right of “socialist” – what in Europe would be called “social-democratic”) would be better for the country still.
Brain Glutton: I’m inclined to degree but for us (we Americans, that is) to move to a more European style model of politics would mean the end of the now century and a half two party system of Republicans and Democrats.
I’d love to see something of a non-Marxist, humanist “social-democratic” type party in America, but I don’t see it happening. The nearest is the “Greenies”, mostly upper income, often with “radical” seeming ideas about saving the animals, wind power and the like but as is so often the case with liberal-leftist types these days the (for me) all important human factor seems left out. It seems that in America there’s a huge mental block against the old rooted in the real world left of center humanism that must be the bedrock of any serious social change that involves human beings, not just the earth in the abstract.
Sheesh 
:), I’m old enough when liberal and left were terms that were used primarily used to describe one’s attitude toward other people (i.e. the poor, the dispossessed, the ill, the forgotten, what Dostotevsy called the insulted and the injured). Any political movement that does not put such moral issues first strikes me as not much more than an exercise in narcissism. I say this as a basically secular individual, a humanist, not a radical.
So, there is no actual down side.
That’s ironic, as most liberals I know “support” the Affordable Care Act only provisionally, and would, had we our druthers, prefer to move to single-payer and let the health insurance companies scramble for survival in a vastly reduced marketplace.
Not to hijack the thread too far in this direction, but there are definite downsides to the Canadian system, depending on what services you need. I’ve experienced both the US and Canadian way of health care, and I do prefer the Canadian way, but it’s not without its issues. Very long waiting lists for some procedures and lack of mental health services are the two I’m personally acquainted with. If you started a thread asking Canadian dopers about their opinions and experiences, you’d find plenty of non-rainbows in the bunch.
Well, perhaps I’m basing my assessment on an anecdotal impression. In 2003 I attended Torcon 3 in Toronto. At one panel discussion, forget the topic, I asked the panelists if there is any downside to the Canadian health-care system. They responded, “No.” “No.” “No.” “No.” “No.” All with an air of faint surprise at the question. And nobody in the room, which held at least a hundred, offered any dissent.
I think those other factors are far more important than taxes.
As others have said, Britain spent vast sums on fighting wars for centuries and was nearly bankrupted by World War 1 + 2.
But The British Empire was fabulously wealthy. No problem with taxes.
‘At its height, it was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power. By 1922 the British Empire held sway over about 458 million people, one-fifth of the world’s population at the time. The empire covered more than 33,700,000 km2 (13,012,000 sq mi), almost a quarter of the Earth’s total land area. As a result, its political, legal, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread.’
Also Norway is part of Europe:
‘…the public sector is among the largest in the world as a percentage of the overall gross domestic product. The country has a very high standard of living compared with other European countries, and a strongly integrated welfare system. Norway’s modern manufacturing and welfare system rely on a financial reserve produced by exploitation of natural resources, particularly North Sea oil…’
Here is a country with high taxes and a massive Government expenditure. It’s also incredibly wealthy (due largely to oil.)
‘The tax level in Norway is among the highest in the world. In 2009 the total tax revenue was 41.0% of the gross domestic product.’
I saw that in the post of yours I quoted. I can’t explain it. Maybe they were surprised by an off-topic question. Maybe they wanted to emphasize that they think it’s better than the US system. Maybe Quebec is worse off than Ontario (each province manages its health care system separately). But I’m not surprised the rest of the room wouldn’t stand up and say something - in my experience, most people at events like that aren’t so rude as to interrupt a panel to toss in their two cents.
Especially not Canadians . . .
Sorry if I said anything offensive in this thread. I’m leaving straight dope. Bye.
So now that you’ve listed why you prefer the Canadian way, what are the problems with it?
I think, or hope at least, that your perception of Greens and of Green influence on the left is atypical. What you’re advocating is old-school progressive liberalism, which is not exactly dead (see Robert Reich, Dennis Kucinich) but has been somehow distorted into “Social Justice Liberalism” (as Will Shetterly likes to complain about).
Greens aren’t necessarily against all that (though there are Malthusian conservationists, obviously). They just know that the earth is not abstract, even if “Green” politics can be.